\t\t\t\t \r\n\t \t \r\n11:55 A.M. EDT\r\n\t \r\n\r\n\t THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Fishbait Fog.\r\n(Laughter.) It's got kind of a nice ring, doesn't it? (Laughter.) I\r\nknew he was born in New Orleans before he ever said it. I love to\r\nlisten to people from New Orleans talk.\r\n\t \r\n\t I thank you for that kind introduction. Your convention\r\nprogram chair, Bob Hayman (phonetic), and your incoming president, Bill\r\nKetler, ladies and gentlemen, I'm very glad to be here.\r\n\t \r\n\t I thought that in addition to me you were going to hear\r\nfrom three people who had run, are running, and were about to run for\r\nPresident. But only Bill Weld showed up. I hope he stays in the about\r\nto run. He and Steve Barrel* are very impressive men, and I'm glad that\r\nthey came here and gave the Republican point of view.\r\n\t \r\n\t It's a privilege to be here. I'd like to begin by saying\r\nthat I am very proud, and I know you are, for the work that the\r\nInteramerican Press Association has done in its Declaration of\r\nChapultepec. I know that you and the Newspaper Association of America\r\nhave worked tirelessly for press freedoms all throughout the Americas.\r\nAnd just before I came out here I was proud to sign a Charter of\r\nEndorsement for the Declaration of Chapultepec. And I thank you for\r\ngiving me that opportunity and what you have done to advance the cause\r\nof a free press. (Applause.)\r\n\t \r\n\t I was talking to a friend of mine the other day who said,\r\nwell, in the '94 election we discovered the limits of liberalism, and\r\nnow we're about to discover the limits of conservatism. And it put me\r\nin mind of a story I once heard about the -- and, actually, I thought\r\nabout it because I met Mr. Favre -- about the late Huey Long, who, when\r\nhe was governor and he was preaching his share the wealth plan was out\r\nin the country one day at a little country crossroads. And he had all\r\nthe people gathered up. And he was going on about how the people were\r\nbeing plundered by the organized wealthy interests in Louisiana.\r\n\t \r\n\t And he saw a guy out in the crowd that he knew and he said,\r\n\"Brother Jones, if you had three cadillacs, wouldn't you give up one of\r\nthem so we could gather up the kids and take them to school during the\r\nweek and take them to church on the weekend?\" He said, \"Sure, I would.\"\r\nHe said, \"And if you had $3 million, wouldn't you give up just a million\r\nof it so we could put a roof over everybody 's head and make sure\r\neverybody had food to eat?\" He said, \"Well, of course, I would.\" He\r\nsaid, \"And if you had three hogs --\" He said, \"Wait a minute, Governor,\r\nI've got three hogs.\" (Laughter and applause.)\r\n\t \r\n\t Anyway, that's the limits of liberalism. Now we're about\r\nto discover the limits of conservatism. (Laughter.)\r\n\t \r\n\t Ladies and gentlemen, we are at an historic moment in our\r\ncountry's history -- on the verge of a new century, living in a very\r\ndifferent kind of economy with a bewildering way of challenges and\r\nopportunities. In 1992 and in 1994, the voters spoke out and demanded\r\nbold changes in the way we govern and the policies we pursue. They know\r\nbetter than anyone else that they are living in a time with new\r\nchallenges that demand new answers.\r\n\t \r\n\t In the last two years, my administration has begun to meet\r\nthose challenges. I ran for President because I felt we were being\r\nvictimized by 12 years of gridlock in which the deficit had gone up, the\r\nwealthiest Americans had done quite well, the middle class had stagnated\r\nand the poor were in trouble; in which the American Dream was really at\r\nrisk because half of the American people were working for the same or\r\nlower wages that they had made 15 years earlier.\r\n\t \r\n\t I had a clear mission. I wanted to grow the middle class,\r\nshrink the underclass and speed up the opportunities for entrepreneurs.\r\nI wanted to promote the mainstream values of responsibility and work,\r\nfamily and community. I wanted to reform the government so that we\r\ncould enhance opportunity, shrink bureaucracy, increase our security\r\nand, most important of all, empower people through education to make the\r\nmost of their own lives.\r\n\t \r\n\t In the first two years we've made good progress. The\r\neconomy is up and the deficit is down. We've expanded educational\r\nopportunities from Head Start through more college loans that are more\r\naffordable. The American people are marching toward more security\r\nbecause there are no Russian missiles pointed at the children of our\r\ncountry for the first time since the dawn of the nuclear age, because we\r\npassed a serious crime bill that will lower the crime rate in many of\r\nour communities throughout the country, and because we've begun to\r\naddress some of the problems of family security with the Family and\r\nMedical Leave Act. And certainly, we have done a lot to shrink and\r\nreform the government's bureaucracy.\r\n\t \r\n\t But it is not enough. Too many Americans don't yet feel\r\nany of those benefits. Too many Americans don't yet feel any of those\r\nbenefits, too many still feel uncertain about their own future, and too\r\nmany people are overwhelmingly concerned about the social and the\r\nunderlying moral problems of our society. And so in 1994, they voted to\r\ngive the Republicans a chance to run the Congress.\r\n\t \r\n\t In the last 100 days, the House of Representatives has\r\npassed a series of bold initiatives. We will soon begin the second 100\r\ndays of this Congress. In the first 100 days, the mission of the House\r\nRepublicans was to suggest ways in which we should change our government\r\nand our society. In the second 100 days, and beyond, our mission\r\ntogether must be to decide which of these House proposals should be\r\nadopted, which should be modified and which should be stopped.\r\n\t \r\n\t In the first 100 days, it fell to the House of\r\nRepresentatives to propose. In the next 100 days and beyond, the\r\nPresident has to lead the quiet, reasoned forces of both parties in both\r\nHouses to sift through the rhetoric and decide what is really best for\r\nAmerica. In making these decisions, it is absolutely vital that we keep\r\nalive the spirit and the momentum of change. But the momentum must not\r\ncarry us so far that we betray our legacy of compassion, decency and\r\ncommon sense.\r\n\t \r\n\t We have entered a new era. For years, out here in the\r\ncountry, the old political categories have basically been defunct and a\r\nnew political discussion has been begging to be born. It must be now so\r\nin Washington, as well. The old labels of liberal and conservative,\r\nspender and cutter, even Democrat and Republican, are not what matter\r\nmost anymore. What matters most is finding practical, pragmatic\r\nsolutions based on what we know works in our lives and our shared\r\nexperiences so that we can go forward together as a nation. Ideological\r\npurity is for partisan extremists. Practical solution, based on real\r\nexperience, hard evidence and common sense -- that's what this country\r\nneeds.\r\n\t \r\n\t We've been saddled too long for a political debate -- with\r\na political debate that doesn't tell us what we ought to do, just who we\r\nout to blame. And we have got to stop pointing fingers at each other so\r\nthat we can join hands.\r\n\t \r\n\t You know, our country has often moved forward spurred on by\r\npurists, reformists, populist agendas which articulated grievances and\r\nproposed radical departures. But if you think about our most successful\r\nperiods of reform, these initiatives have been shaped by presidents who\r\nincorporated what was good, smoothed out what was rough, and discarded\r\nwhat would hurt. That was the role of Theodore Roosevelt and Woodrow\r\nWilson in the aftermath of the populist era. That was the role of\r\nFranklin Roosevelt in the aftermath of the La Follette progressive\r\nmovement. And that is my job in the next 100 days and for all the days\r\nI serve as President.\r\n\t \r\n\t We stand at a crossroads. In one direction lies\r\nconfrontation and gridlock; in the other lies achievement and progress.\r\nI was not elected President to pile up a stack of vetoes. I was elected\r\nPresident to change the direction of America. That's what I have spent\r\nthe last two years doing and that's what I want to spend the next 100\r\ndays and beyond doing. Whether we can do that depends upon what all of\r\nus in Washington do from here on out.\r\n\t \r\n\t So I appeal today to Republicans and to Democrats alike to\r\nget together, to keep the momentum for change going, not to allow the\r\nenergy and longing for change now to be dissipated amid a partisan\r\nclutter of accusations. After all, we share much common ground.\r\n\t \r\n\t For example, in 1992, I was elected to end welfare as we\r\nknow it. That was part of my New Covenant of opportunity and\r\nresponsibility. In 1994, the Republicans made the same demand with\r\ntheir Contract. In the last two years, I have already given 25 states,\r\none-half of the country, the opportunity to do just that on their own.\r\nAnd I introduced the most sweeping welfare reform the country had ever\r\nseen. I want to work with the Congress to get real welfare reform.\r\n\t \r\n\t In 1992, I was elected to slash the deficit. That also was\r\npart of my New Covenant. In 1994, the Republican Contract called for a\r\ncontinuing deficit reduction and movement toward a balanced budget.\r\nWell, I cut the deficit by $600 billion, cut 300 programs; I proposed to\r\nconsolidate or eliminate 400 more. I want to cut the deficit. Except\r\nfor the interest run up between 1981 and 1992, our budget would be in\r\nbalance today. My administration is the only one in 30 years to run an\r\noperating surplus. I will work with the Republicans to reduce the\r\ndeficit.\r\n\t \r\n\t In 1992, I was elected to shrink the size of the federal\r\ngovernment which I have done. That, too, was a part of my New Covenant.\r\nIn 1994, the Republican Contract said we should shrink the government.\r\nI have already cut 100,000 bureaucratic positions and we are on the way\r\nunder budgets already passed to reducing the government by 270,000, to\r\nits smallest size since President Kennedy occupied this office. I want\r\nto work with Congress to reduce the size of government.\r\n\t \r\n\t We both want tax cuts, less intrusive government\r\nregulations, the line-item veto, the toughest possible fight against\r\ncrime. These were a part of the New Covenant and a part of the\r\nRepublican Contract. In two years, we have made real progress on all\r\nthese fronts, but we can, and we should do more.\r\n\t \r\n\t We are near many breakthroughs. The real issue is whether\r\nwe will have the wisdom and the courage to see our common ground and\r\nwalk on it. To do that, we must abandon extreme positions and work\r\ntogether. This is no time for ideological extremism. Good-faith\r\ncompromising, negotiating our differences, actually listening to one\r\nanother for a change -- these are the currency of a healthy democracy.\r\n\t \r\n\t In that spirit, I come here today to outline where I stand\r\non the remaining items in the Republican Contract and the unfinished\r\nbusiness of my New Covenant.\r\n\t \r\n\t Let's begin with taxes. In 1993, I made a down payment on\r\nthe middle-class tax cut I advocated when I ran for President. We cut\r\ntaxes for 15 million working families. What that means on average is\r\nthat this year a family of four with an income of $25,000 or less will\r\nhave about $1,000 in lower tax bills. We did this to ensure that nobody\r\nwho works full-time and has children should live in poverty. If you\r\nwant to reform the welfare system, you must reward work and parenting.\r\n\t \r\n\t So I want a tax cut to expand, to include more members of\r\nthe middle class. Why? Because half the American people are working\r\nfor the same or lower incomes they were making 15 years ago. And we've\r\nhad a recovery that's produced 6.3 million new jobs, the lowest combined\r\nrates of unemployment and inflation in 25 years, and we need to spread\r\nthe benefits of the recovery.\r\n\t \r\n\t But this $200-billion tax cut, which is really more than\r\nthree times that if you look at it over a 10 year period, is a fantasy.\r\nIt's too much. It's not going to happen. We can't afford it. A\r\nrealistic cut would be somewhere around a third of that. That's\r\nsomething we can afford. In the world we're living in up there, if we\r\ngo beyond that, what you're going to see is no success at deficit\r\nreduction, or horrible injustice to the most vulnerable people in our\r\ncountry. So we can't pass that. Let's get over it and talk about what\r\nwe can pass and work on doing it. Let's target a tax cut to the right\r\npeople and for the right purpose.\r\n\t \r\n\t We have to choose: Do you want a tax cut for the wealthy\r\nor for the middle class? The Republican plan gives half of the benefits\r\nto the 10 percent of our people who are best off, and most importantly,\r\nto the 10 percent of our people who have done very, very well in the\r\nlast 15 years. Twenty percent of the benefits go to the top one percent\r\nof our people. They have done very well in the new global economy. The\r\nmiddle class has suffered the stagnant incomes. Let's direct the tax\r\nbenefits to those people.\r\n\t \r\n\t But we also have to choose what kind of tax break. Shall\r\nwe just put money in people's pockets? Or shouldn't we do something\r\nthat will strengthen families and increase the whole wealth and success\r\nof the United States over the long run? Let's help our people get the\r\neducation and job training they need.\r\n\t \r\n\t The technology revolution, the global economy -- these are\r\ndividing opportunity at home and abroad. The middle class is splitting\r\napart. And the fault line is education. Those who have it do well;\r\nthose who don't are in trouble. So let's use the tax cut as I propose\r\nin the Middle Class Bill of Rights as sort of a scholarship given by\r\nAmerica to people for their cost of education after high school. And\r\nlet's provide for an IRA that people can withdraw from tax free to meet\r\nthe exigencies that their families face -- college education, health\r\ncare costs, first-time home, care of an elderly parent. These things\r\nwill strengthen our country and we can afford it.\r\n\t \r\n\t Let's take welfare reform. As I said, both of us, both the\r\nRepublican Contract and my New Covenant, have focused heavily on welfare\r\nreform. What do we agree on? That there ought to be a limit to\r\nwelfare; that there ought to be flexibility for the states; that we\r\nought to have the toughest possible child support enforcement; and that\r\npeople have to take more responsibility for their own lives and for the\r\nchildren they bring into this world.\r\n\t \r\n\t But the current House bill focuses primarily on cutting\r\ncosts. It's weak on work and tough on kids. It punishes young people\r\nfor past mistakes. We must require them, instead, to look to the\r\nfuture, and in the future, to be responsible parents, to be responsible\r\nworkers, to be responsible students, and then give them the opportunity\r\nto do that.\r\n\t \r\n\t The House bill also punishes young children for the sins of\r\ntheir parents. I think that's wrong. Rich or poor, black, white or\r\nbrown, in or out of wedlock, a baby is a baby; a child is a child. It's\r\npart of our future, and we have an obligation to those children not to\r\npunish them for something over which they had absolutely no control.\r\n(Applause.)\r\n\t \r\n\t Now, that's where I disagree. But look what we agree on.\r\nWe are near historic change. We can do this. We can make a difference.\r\nWe can break the culture of welfare, and we can do something good for\r\nour country to support the values we all believe in. And we can give\r\nthese children a better future. But to do it, we're going to have to\r\ntalk through our differences and get beyond the rhetoric to how these\r\nreal lives work, and not stand on the sidelines posturing for political\r\ngain.\r\n\t \r\n\t Let's take cutting the deficit. The balanced budget\r\namendment is dead. But now we have to get specific; how are we going to\r\ncut the deficit and move this budget toward balance? If we can focus on\r\ncuts, not making partisan points, that's the first step. There are cuts\r\nI can't live with. There are cuts the Republicans can't live with.\r\nLet's avoid them and make cuts we can all live with.\r\n\t \r\n\t We shouldn't cut help for our children. That builds our\r\nfuture. We shouldn't cut their education, their immunization, their\r\nschool lunches, the infant formulas or the nutrition programs. There's\r\nno need to cut them. So far, based on the action they've taken, the\r\nRepublicans want the poor in this country to bear the burden of\r\ntwo-thirds of their proposed cuts and only get five percent of the\r\nbenefit of the tax cuts. It is not right. It is wrong. But that\r\ndoesn't mean we don't have to cut the budget and reduce the deficit.\r\n\t \r\n\t The rescission package that passed the Senate last night\r\ngives us a model about how we should proceed. The House passed a\r\nrescission package with completely unacceptable cuts in education, child\r\nnutrition, environment, housing and national service. The Senate\r\nRepublicans, to their credit, restored several of these cuts. I\r\ninsisted on restoring even more and replacing them with better cuts.\r\nAnd almost every one of the Democrats in the Senate agreed.\r\n\t \r\n\t So, yesterday, over the course of the debate, they worked\r\nthat out. Those cuts were restored as well. There will still be a $16\r\nbillion reduction in the deficit this year. The bill passed 99-0 in the\r\nSenate, and I will sign the Senate bill if the House and the Senate will\r\nsend it to me. That's how we should be doing the business of America.\r\n\t \r\n\t Let's talk about the line-item veto. As I said before,\r\nthat was in the Republican Contract, and I campaigned for President on\r\nit in 1992. I appeal to Congress to pass it in its strongest form. I\r\nappeal to members of my own party who have reservations about it to\r\nsupport it as well. The line-item veto has passed both the Senate and\r\nthe House.\r\n\t \r\n\t If you look at how it passed the Senate, that's an example\r\nof how we can make this system work. I strongly supported it. I\r\ncampaigned to Democratic senators and asked them to support it. They\r\nworked out their differences, and it passed overwhelmingly in the\r\nSenate.\r\n\t \r\n\t The President and the Congress both need the power to cut\r\nspending. If you doubt it -- if you doubt it -- look at the bill that\r\nCongress recently passed to restore to 3.2 million self-employed\r\nAmericans -- farmers, small businesspeople, professionals and all their\r\nfamily members -- the 25 percent deduction for the cost of their health\r\ninsurance.\r\n\t \r\n\t That was a part of my health care plan. I desperately want\r\nto do that. We ought to do more. They ought to be treated just like\r\ncorporations. It is imperative to sign it. But hidden in that bill was\r\na special tax break for people who did not need it. If I had the Senate\r\nversion of the line-item veto, I could sign the bill and help the people\r\nwho are entitled to it, and veto the special break. This is the kind of\r\nthing that's been hidden in bills of Congress forever. We can now do\r\nsomething about it, and we ought to do it.\r\n\t \r\n\t Political reform -- something that was also in the\r\nRepublican Contract: Two of the 10 items in the Republican Contract\r\nhave actually become law. And two, term limits and the balanced budget\r\namendment, have been defeated. Of the two that have become law, they\r\nwere both about political reform and they were also both part of my 1992\r\ncommitments to the American people. One applies to Congress the laws\r\nthey impose on the private sector. The other limits the ability of\r\nCongress to impose unfunded mandates on state and local government. I\r\nwas proud to sign them both. They will advance the cause of responsible\r\ngovernment in this country.\r\n\t \r\n\t But political reform means more. It must include, I\r\nbelieve, both lobbying reform and campaign finance reform. If you doubt\r\nhow much we need lobby reform just go back and refer to the story that\r\nwas rightly printed just a few days ago about how, in this session of\r\nCongress, you have lobbyists actually sitting at the table with\r\ncongressmen, writing bills for them and then explaining to them what the\r\nbills mean. It seems to me that since these bills help the people the\r\nlobbyists represent, but drastically restrict the ability of the\r\ngovernment to act in the areas of the environment, in protecting our\r\npeople, we need some significant reform in our lobbying laws. So I\r\ndon't think we should stop there.\r\n\t \r\n\t Regulatory reform -- another big item in the Republican\r\nContract: There are lots of horror stories. Every one of you probably\r\nknows a story that shows where a bureaucrat overreached, or there were\r\ntoo many regulations, or there was too little common sense. I am\r\ncommitted to changing the culture of regulation that has dominated our\r\ncountry for a long time. I have gone around espousing to everybody that\r\nthey ought to read Mr. Howard's book, The Death of Common Sense.\r\n\t \r\n\t But for two years, we have been working through the\r\nReinventing Government Initiative that the Vice President has headed to\r\nchange the culture of regulation. We deregulated banking. We\r\nderegulated intrastate trucking. We have reformed the procedures of the\r\nSBA. We scrapped the 10,000-page federal personnel manual. We have\r\ndramatically changed the way the General Services Administration\r\noperates in ways that have saved hundreds of millions of dollars for the\r\ntaxpayers and put more competition into the process, thanks to the BSA\r\nDirector, Roger Johnson, who happens to be here with me today. We are\r\nworking on these things to move forward.\r\n\t \r\n\t But we must do more. And yet, surely, the answer is not to\r\nstop the government from regulating what it needs to regulate. If the\r\nRepublicans send me a bill that would let unsafe planes fly or\r\ncontaminated meat be sold, or contaminated water continue to find itself\r\ninto city water systems, I will veto it. I will veto it. But if\r\nCongress will just sit down with me and work out a reasonable solution\r\nfor more flexible regulatory reform, we can create an historic\r\nachievement.\r\n\t \r\n\t I agree that Congress has a role to play. I agree that\r\nCongress sometimes hears things about the way regulations work that\r\npeople in the Executive Branch don't. Congresswoman Johnson and\r\nCongressman Bryant and Congressman Geren flew down here with me today --\r\nthey're out there all the time talking to their members. They may hear\r\nthings we don't. That's why I approve of the Senate's 45-day override\r\nlegislation. But I will veto any bill that lets a bunch of lawyers tie\r\nup regulation for years. We've got too much of that as it is.\r\n\t \r\n\t So I say, flexibility, yes; reform, yes; but paralysis and\r\nstraightjacketing, no.\r\n\t \r\n\t Let's talk about legal reform. Are there too many\r\nlawsuits? Of course, there are. Do jury awards once in a while get out\r\nof hand? Yes, they do. Does this affect the insurance system in the\r\ncountry? It has an impact on it. But at a time when we're giving more\r\nand more responsibility to the states in which one of the signal ideas\r\nof the Republican Contract that I largely agree with is that the state\r\nand local governments should have more responsibility, do we really want\r\nto take the entire civil justice system away from the states for the\r\nfirst time in 200 years? I don't think so.\r\n\t \r\n\t Let me give you a couple of examples. Should we put\r\njustice out of the reach of ordinary people with a \"loser pay\" rule?\r\nNo. Think about it this way -- \"loser pays\" will keep ordinary citizens\r\nfrom exercising their rights in court just as a poll tax used to keep\r\nordinary people of color and poverty from exercising their right to\r\nvote. I will veto any bill with a \"loser pay\" requirement such as that\r\nthat was in the House bill. I don't think it's right.\r\n\t \r\n\t Punitive damages -- they could stand some reform, but not\r\nartificial ceilings. Punitive damages are designed to deter bad future\r\nconduct. Now, if you have a national ceiling of $250,000 think what\r\nthat means -- $250,000 may be too burdensome for a small businessperson\r\nwho loses a lawsuit. You don't want to put them out of business unless\r\nthey're malicious. But does anybody seriously believe that $250,000\r\nwill have any kind of significant deterrent impact on a giant\r\nmultinational corporation? So let's negotiate realistic reforms that\r\nimprove the system, but don't wreck it.\r\n\t \r\n\t Crime: Crime was a big part of the New Covenant, a big\r\npart of why I ran for President. The personal security of the American\r\npeople should be our first concern. And we delivered. After six years\r\nwe broke gridlock and I signed a crime bill that was endorsed by all the\r\nmajor law enforcement organizations in the country, the cities, the\r\ncounties, the prosecutors, the attorneys general -- everybody. And it\r\nhad bipartisan support, too, until we got close to the last election --\r\nRepublicans and Democrats cosponsoring all major provisions.\r\n\t \r\n\t What was in the crime bill? It had more punishment, three\r\nstrikes and you're out, expansion of capital punishment. It had more\r\npolice -- 100,000 police on our street. And I might say that over half\r\nof the communities in this country have already received grants under\r\nthe police program just since last October. We're ahead of schedule and\r\nunder budget. There are already about 17,000 police officers authorized\r\nand funded to be hired.\r\n\t \r\n\t It had more prisons -- something the Republicans very much\r\nwanted -- as long as the states agreed to change their sentencing\r\nprocedures. And it had more prevention programs -- something the police\r\ndemanded. The police said, you cannot police and punish and imprison\r\nyour way out of the crime crisis. You have got to give these children\r\nin our country something to say yes to. You've got to give them a\r\nreason to stay off drugs, a reason to stay in school, a reason to\r\nbelieve they can have a future. So it had all those things.\r\n\t \r\n\t Now, if the Republicans wish to continue to try to repeal\r\nthe commitment to 100,000 police, or to repeal the assault weapons ban,\r\nthey have a perfect right to do it. But if they send me those\r\nprovisions I will veto them. On the other hand, while the rest of their\r\ncrime bill needs some work, and I disagree with some provisions of it,\r\nit has some good points. If we can build on the '94 crime bill instead\r\nof tear it down, we can continue our efforts to make the American people\r\nmore secure. So let's do that. Let's pass a crime bill we can be proud\r\nof, that builds the country up and makes our citizens safer.\r\n\t \r\n\t The environmental protection area: A big part of my New\r\nCovenant was protecting our environment and promoting our natural\r\nresources. It's something we can all give to our children whether we\r\ndie rich or poor. And it is our obligation to our future economic\r\nhealth, because no nation over the long run succeeds economically unless\r\nyou preserve your environment.\r\n\t \r\n\t I just got back from Haiti, and I can tell you one of the\r\nbiggest obstacles to the survival of democracy in that country is they\r\nhave ripped all the trees off every hill in the country, and we need to\r\nplant tens of millions of trees. We could put half the young people in\r\nthe country to work for a year just trying to undo the environmental\r\ndevastation. And unless we do it, they're not going to be able to\r\nregain their economic footing.\r\n\t \r\n\t I cannot and I will not compromise any clean water, any\r\nclean air, any protection against toxic waste. The environment cannot\r\nprotect itself. And if it requires a presidential veto to protect it,\r\nthen that's what I'll provide.\r\n\t \r\n\t I will also veto the House-passed requirement that\r\ngovernment pay property owners billions of dollars every time we act to\r\ndefend our national heritage of seashores or wetlands or open spaces.\r\nIf that law were on the books in every state in the country today, then\r\nlocal governments would completely have to give up zoning or be bankrupt\r\nevery time they try to change a zoning law. That is why every time it's\r\nbeen on the ballot in a state -- and it's been on the ballot 20 times,\r\nincluding in conservative, Republican states -- it has been defeated.\r\nThe people of Arizona voted against it by a 20-point margin last\r\nNovember.\r\n\t \r\n\t Well, the people do not have to vote -- do not have a vote\r\non this issue in Congress. But I do, and I'll use it. This is not a\r\ngood law.\r\n\t \r\n\t Peacekeeping: Decades from now when we have our next\r\nRepublican president -- (laughter) -- he or she will be very grateful\r\nthat I refused to approve the so-called peacekeeping legislation passed\r\nby the House. The United Nations and the world community did not\r\nstruggle through 45 years of stagnation because of Soviet vetoes to have\r\nto deal with a new stagnation because of an American congressional veto.\r\n\t \r\n\t The United Nations is 50 years old this year. But it's\r\nonly four or five years old as a real force for international stability\r\nand security as it was imagined by Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt\r\nand Dwight Eisenhower and Arthur Vandenberg, responsible Republicans and\r\nDemocrats. So let us learn from the United Nations' mistakes in\r\nSomalia, and the United Nations' successes in Haiti and throughout the\r\nworld, about how we can best keep the peace in partnership with our\r\nneighbors throughout the world.\r\n\t \r\n\t In Haiti there were almost 30 countries in there with us\r\nand the multinational force, and under the U.N. mission there now, well\r\nover 30 countries -- people who came from a long way away because they\r\nknow the world must work together to promote humanity and peace and\r\ndemocracy and decency. Let us not walk away from the United Nations and\r\nisolate America from the world.\r\n\t \r\n\t There's some other things I want to talk about. Those are\r\nthe items in the Republican Contract, many of which were also in my New\r\nCovenant and where I stand on them. But I want to talk about some other\r\nitems as well -- the unfinished business of the agenda that I ran for\r\nPresident on.\r\n\t \r\n\t I was elected to fix a broken government, to relight the\r\ndormant fires of the economy, to make sure that working families reap\r\nthe just reward of their effort and are able to pass their children the\r\nsame dream they had, and to end the sort of \"something for nothing\"\r\nmentality that had crept into our country by restoring the values of\r\nresponsibility and work and family and community.\r\n\t \r\n\t The Republican Contract, even where I agree with it, does\r\nnot deal with much of what is really at the heart of America's\r\nchallenges today -- opportunity and security for working Americans. So\r\nlet me talk about these issues.\r\n\t \r\n\t Health care: In the State of the Union I said I had\r\nlearned that I bit off more than I could chew last year and we have to\r\nreform health care a step at a time. But I haven't forgotten the need\r\nto reform health care. Everybody knows we still have problems. It\r\ncosts too much; there are a lot of people who have inadequate coverage;\r\nthere are a lot of people who have no coverage at all; and there are\r\nmillions of Americans who could lose their coverage at any time.\r\n\t \r\n\t \r\n\t So I call on Republicans to join me in taking this one step\r\nat a time, beginning with things the majority of them have long\r\nendorsed: First, making benefits portable so you don't lose your health\r\ncare when you change jobs. Second, requiring coverage for families with\r\na preexisting condition so the whole family doesn't lose health care\r\njust because there's been one sick child.\r\n\t \r\n\t I saw a couple from Delaware on the street in Washington a\r\ncouple of months ago when I was taking my jog -- the best-looking family\r\nyou ever saw. The young man and woman looked to be in their late '30s;\r\nthey had five children. Their fourth child had a birth defect and he\r\nwas a small businessman -- none of them had any health insurance.\r\nThat's an intolerable situation in this country, and we shouldn't' put\r\nup with it.\r\n\t \r\n\t The third thing we ought to do is to establish voluntary\r\npools, such as those established in Florida and many other states, which\r\nallow small businesses and self-employed people to buy health care on\r\nthe same terms as those of us who work for government or big\r\ncorporations can buy it, to put some competitive power behind their\r\nneed.\r\n\t \r\n\t The fourth thing we should do is to expand home care for\r\nthe elderly, so that families who are struggling to keep their elderly\r\nparents and grandparents at home in a more independent living setting\r\nhave some alternative before putting them into a nursing home when it\r\nwill almost certainly cost the government much, much more money.\r\n\t \r\n\t And, finally, we ought to do our best in the way of\r\ncoverage to help families keep their coverage when they're unemployed\r\nfor an extended period of time. And we should do all this within the\r\ncontext of a determination to hold down the costs of health care --\r\nstill the biggest problem for most Americans. We can do this without a\r\ntax increase and while working to bring the deficit down. We have been\r\nworking very hard on this. The numbers clearly make that apparent.\r\n\t \r\n\t The second issue I want to raise on our unfinished agenda\r\nis the minimum wage. The minimum wage is the key, first, to welfare\r\nreform. Unless work pays, why will people do it? There is some\r\nevidence that not only will the minimum wage increase I proposed not\r\ncost jobs, it might actually increase employment by drawing people into\r\nthe ranks of the employed who are hanging out now.\r\n\t \r\n\t Not only that, working people simply cannot live and raise\r\nkids on $8,500 a year. Now, the Republicans want -- and they've wanted\r\nfor a long time -- they want to index tax rates against inflation, which\r\nhas now been done. Now they want to index capital gains against\r\ninflation. They want to guard the defense budget against inflation.\r\nBut they're willing to let minimum wage workers fall to their lowest\r\nreal incomes in 40 years? That's what will happen if we don't raise the\r\nminimum wage. The lowest real incomes in 40 years -- is that your idea\r\nof the legacy for working people in the aftermath of the Cold War, in\r\nthe Information Age, leading America into a bright, new time?\r\n\t \r\n\t The minimum wage, again, has always before been a\r\nbipartisan issue. The last time we raised the minimum wage, it got an\r\nenormous vote in the Congress from Republicans and Democrats. Let's\r\nmake the minimum wage a bipartisan issue again and raise it to a decent\r\nlevel, so that working people and their children will not have to worry\r\nabout being punished for doing the right thing.\r\n\t \r\n\t The last issue I want to talk about is education and\r\ntraining. I've already said most of what I want to say about it. The\r\nSecretary of Education is here with me today, along with many other\r\npeople in the White House -- my Chief of Staff, Mr. Panetta, and\r\nothers. We've all worked very hard on education. Why? Because I\r\nbelieve that the most important job of government today is to give\r\npeople the tools they need to succeed in the global economy.\r\n\t \r\n\t With all these changes that are going on, everybody knows\r\nthe government can't guarantee everybody a job. We haven't been able to\r\ndo it in a long time, and our ability to guarantee the same job for a\r\ncareer is less than ever before. I can work to create healthy\r\nconditions in which large numbers of jobs will be created, but\r\nguaranteeing a particular job to a particular person for a lifetime, it\r\nis out; it's not possible.\r\n\t \r\n\t The only thing we can do is to make sure that for a whole\r\nlifetime people will always be able to get the skills they need,\r\nbeginning at the earliest possible time with good education. That means\r\nthat as we cut the deficit and cut the budget, we must not cut\r\neducation. We shouldn't cut Head Start. We shouldn't cut aid to public\r\nschools to meet national standards of excellence. We shouldn't cut\r\napprenticeships to help young people who don't go on to college get good\r\ntraining so they can get a job with a growing income, not a shrinking\r\nincome.\r\n\t \r\n\t We sure shouldn't cut and make more expensive the college\r\nloan program when we need more people going to college, and the cost of\r\ngoing is higher than ever before. And we should not cut our national\r\nservice program, AmeriCorps, which lets people earn college money\r\nthrough community service. Cutting education in the face of global\r\neconomic competition, as I have said repeatedly, would be just like\r\ncutting the defense budget at the height of the Cold War. It undermines\r\nour security as a people, and we shouldn't do it.\r\n\t \r\n\t I advocated in the Middle Class Bill of Rights a deduction\r\nfor the cost of all education after high school; the ability to withdraw\r\ntax-free from an IRA to pay for the cost of education after high school;\r\nand a G.I. Bill for America's workers that would collapse literally\r\ndozens of these federal programs that are here, there and yonder in job\r\ntraining into one block grant, and not give it to the states, give it to\r\nthe people. Let Americans who are unemployed or grossly unemployed have\r\na voucher for cash money which they can use at any education or training\r\nfacility of their choice as long as it's decent and meets good standards\r\n-- so that we can have a continuous, seamless web of lifetime of\r\neducation and training opportunities for the people of the United\r\nStates.\r\n\t \r\n\t Well, there it is. That's what I'm for and what I'm\r\nagainst. I do not want a pile of vetoes. I want a pile of bills that\r\nwill move this country into the future. I don't want to see a big fight\r\nbetween the Republicans and the Democrats. I want us to surprise\r\neverybody in America by rolling up our sleeves and joining hands and\r\nworking together. I believe this is a time of such profound change that\r\nwe need a dynamic center that is not in the middle of what is left and\r\nright, but is way beyond it. That's what I want, and that's what I'm\r\nworking for.\r\n\t \r\n\t If you want to know how I'm going to make other decisions\r\n-- if I left one out -- I would refer you to what I said in my address\r\nto the nation on December 15th. My test is: Does an idea expand\r\nmiddle-class incomes and opportunities? Does it promote values like\r\nfamily, work, responsibility, and community? Does it strengthen the\r\nhand of America's working families in a global economy. If it does,\r\nI'll be for it, no matter who proposes it. And if it doesn't, I will\r\noppose it.\r\n\t \r\n\t The future I want for America is like the one I imagined I\r\nhad when I was the age of these children that are here in this audience.\r\nWe can give this to our children. In fact, we can give a bigger future\r\nto our children. I am absolutely convinced that if we are tough enough\r\nand wise enough and unpolitical enough to put the interests of ordinary\r\nAmericans first, and to really focus on the future, that our best days\r\nare before us, better than we can even imagine. But it all depends on\r\nwhat we do at this crossroads. Let's get busy.\r\n\t \r\n\t Thank you very much. (Applause.)\r\n\t \r\n * * * * * \r\n\t \r\n\t Q\tMr. President, you talk about a civilized conversation\r\nin this country leading towards a new common ground. How would you\r\nchallenge American newspapers to forward that conversation, doing things\r\nthat we aren't doing now?\r\n\t \r\n\t THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know what each of you are\r\ndoing or not doing now. But I will give you some examples. I'll give\r\nyou three examples. I think you should try to replicate in your\r\ncommunities the kind of conversation that Newsweek reprinted based on\r\nquestions they asked Speaker Gingrich and me about what the role of\r\ngovernment is and what it should be. I don't think that we -- I think\r\nboth of us are a little bit frustrated about it, because we didn't know\r\n-- we just answered questions, and then they had to turn it into an\r\narticle, but it was the beginning of an interesting conversation about\r\nwhat the role of government ought to be.\r\n\t \r\n\t The second thing I would advise is to take each one of\r\nthese issues -- I saw in the, I think it was in the Dallas Morning News,\r\none of the papers today, I saw that I read had a portrait of a family on\r\nwelfare. Take each of these big issues and try to figure out how to go\r\nfrom rhetoric to reality so that people can understand what all these\r\nlabels mean. Because if all you hear about these debates is what sort\r\nof pierces through in 10 or 15 seconds on the evening news, chances are\r\nyour opinion will be more dominated by the rhetoric. And if it happens\r\nto comport with the facts, that's fine; but if it doesn't, that's not so\r\ngood. Newspapers can do that. Newspapers can analyze in depth real,\r\nhard evidence on various problems.\r\n\t \r\n\t And the third thing I think maybe you ought to consider\r\ndoing is sponsoring conversations within your community of people of\r\ndifferent political and racial and other stripes -- just people who are\r\ndifferent. Because we are running the risk -- interestingly enough, we\r\nhave more information than ever before, but the way we get it may divide\r\nus from one another instead of unite us.\r\n\t \r\n\t And I think it might be really interesting if all the\r\nnewspapers in the country sponsored community discussions. I don't mean\r\nbring people like me or people who want to be president, or even maybe\r\npeople from Congress in from outside, but I mean the people in your\r\nlocal community who would represent different political points of view\r\nand live in different neighborhoods and are from different racial\r\nbackgrounds and have an agenda of common topics that are being discussed\r\nall around the country -- and let people listen to each other and talk\r\nto each other.\r\n\t \r\n\t My experience has always been that the differences among\r\nus, except on a few issues, are not nearly as profound as we think they\r\nare. And then report that to your readers. Because we have to\r\nestablish some sense of common ground. If all of our public discourse\r\nis about segmenting the electorate and then trying to make sure that by\r\nelection day you've got the biggest segment, and there's never an\r\nopportunity to redefine where we are in common, that may work okay in a\r\nstable time because the polices are more or less set, the direction is\r\nmore or less set; nobody's going to veer too much one way or the other\r\nanyway. But in a time of real profound change where the information\r\nrevolution has made all of us actors, it is important that we try to\r\nestablish more common ground. So those would be my three suggestions.\r\n\t \r\n\t Q\tMr. President, we're coming upon the ceremonies to\r\ncommemorate the 50th anniversary of V-J Day. And someone suggested that\r\nit's time to try to heal the wounds of that war, and that the United\r\nStates should take the first step by apologizing for dropping a bomb on\r\nHiroshima and Nagasaki. Should we apologize, and did President Harry\r\nTruman make the right decision in dropping the bomb?\r\n\t \r\n\t THE PRESIDENT: No. And based on the facts he had before\r\nhim, yes. (Applause.)\r\n\t \r\n\t Q\tMr. President, last week you went to Haiti where the\r\nmilitary operation of our troops and other nations really helped restore\r\norder and to stop the refugees from coming to our state and to our\r\ncountry. Several miles away, there are several thousand Cubans trying\r\nto flee that oppressive regime who are now being detained indefinitely\r\nin Guantanamo. What's the way out for our policy and for those Cubans?\r\n\t \r\n\t THE PRESIDENT: First, we are doing our best to deal with\r\nthe situation at Guantanamo, which is a very difficult one, for reasons\r\nbecause of where you're from you understand as well as I do. We have\r\nmoved quickly, or as quickly as we could to review the cases of the\r\nchildren and the elderly people who are there, and we have moved quite a\r\nlot of people into the United States. We are now having detailed\r\ndiscussions about what we should do about the remainder of the people\r\nwho are there at Guantanamo. Meanwhile, we've done what we could to\r\nmake their conditions as livable, as bearable as possible.\r\n\t \r\n\t As to our policy, even though I recognize most countries\r\ndisagree with it, I think being firm has been the proper policy. And I\r\ndo not believe we should change it except within the confines of the\r\nCuba Democracy Act. I would remind everyone here who's interested in\r\nthis that the Cuba Democracy Act, while it stiffened sanctions against\r\nCuba, also for the first time explicitly laid out in legislative\r\nlanguage the conditions under which the United States might change\r\nvarious actions toward Cuba in return for actions by the Cubans.\r\n\t \r\n\t Let me give you just one example. We have established, for\r\nthe first time, direct phone service into Cuba. And the lines are quite\r\njammed, as I understand it. It's cut the cost of calling home and\r\ncalling relatives for Cuban Americans. And it's enabled the Cuban\r\ngovernment to earn some money, because in all direct telephone\r\nconversations internationally, countries -- at least, many countries,\r\nput a fee on such conversations. We did that because we thought it was\r\nthe appropriate thing to do given the state of our relations and because\r\nof some things that had changed. Cuba is now establishing a more\r\ngenuine farmers market that shows some movement in that area.\r\n\t \r\n\t But the Cuban Democracy Act gives us a framework for future\r\nmovement, and I -- and also a firmness in our policy. And I think we\r\nshould stay with both, both the firmness and the framework of the Act.\r\n\t \r\n\t Q\tWe have heard from several people here that there ought\r\nto be a multiracial box on the U.S. Census forms so that people with\r\nparents of two races wouldn't have to deny one of them. What do you\r\nthink should happen here?\r\n\t \r\n\t THE PRESIDENT: I wouldn't be opposed to that. That's the\r\nfirst time I ever heard it, but it makes sense. It's interesting that\r\nyou raised that because of a related debate that's going on in\r\nWashington today, which is whether we should pass a federal law which\r\nmakes it clear that we should not discriminate against parents of one\r\nrace in their attempts to adopt a child of another race. And I\r\npersonally strongly support that position. And we've been trying to\r\nwork through it to make -- I thought we had adopted that position last\r\nyear at the end of the year. We did in large measure. We're talking\r\nabout whether we need any other legal changes to achieve that.\r\n\t \r\n\t But I -- we are clearly going to have more and more\r\nmultiracial, multiethnic children and families in this country. You're\r\nthe first person who ever asked me that question. But I think it ought\r\nto be done. I can't see any reason not to do it.<\/b>\r\n\t \r\n\t Q\tOne of the issues we've been examining at this\r\nconvention, Mr. President, is the new Information Age and our own role\r\nin it. And one of the issues that's likely to come up in the next 100\r\ndays to which you referred is a broad reform of telecommunications\r\npolicy. Do you think that a pragmatic, practical compromise solution in\r\nthis area, which affects how people get their dial tones and what is on\r\nthat dial tone, is likely to come out of these discussions?\r\n\t \r\n\t THE PRESIDENT: I do. I think it is likely. Let me say\r\nthat I very much wanted to pass a telecommunications act in the last\r\nsession of Congress. And we came within a hair's breath of being able\r\nto do it. Some rather -- to me any way -- rather minor problems hung it\r\nup in the Senate. And, as you know, it's not difficult to hang a bill\r\nup in the Senate. And so it got hung. If we can pass the right kind of\r\ntelecommunications act it can be good for American consumers and it can\r\npump billions of more dollars into this economy and create a very large\r\nnumber of jobs.\r\n\t \r\n\t It's interesting that you would ask me this. The Vice\r\nPresident and I had lunch yesterday -- our weekly lunch -- and we talked\r\nabout this for quite some time. My concern about the bill in its\r\npresent form in the Senate is that I believe, as written, it would lead\r\nto a rather rapid increase and a rather substantial increase in both\r\ntelephone and cable rates in ways that I do not believe are necessary to\r\nget the benefits that the telecommunications bill seeks to achieve. So\r\nI would like to see some provisions in there which deal with that.\r\n\t \r\n\t I can also tell you that the antitrust division of the\r\nJustice Department has some fairly serious reservations about how far it\r\ngoes. Now, I have, in several areas, been willing to see, because of\r\nthe globalization of the economy, some modifications in our antitrust\r\nlaws. But I'm concerned -- and I think they're warranted. But I think\r\nthat this may go too far. But the most important concern I have is, are\r\nwe going to have a very large and unnecessary increase in cable and\r\nphone rates immediately if the bill, as passed, is adopted? That is my\r\nmajor concern. But I think we can get one and we certainly need to get\r\none.\r\n\t \r\n\t Q\tMr. President, yesterday on the front page of The New\r\nYork Times was this headline: \"Hillary Clinton, a Traditional First\r\nLady Now.\" Could you tell us, was there a point where you sat down with\r\nthe First Lady to discuss her role for the remainder of your term --\r\n(laughter) --\r\n\t \r\n\t THE PRESIDENT: No.\r\n\t \r\n\t Q\tand if so, what was the content of that discussion and\r\nwhat prompted it? (Laughter.)\r\n\t \r\n\t THE PRESIDENT: (Laughter.) I was trying to think of\r\nsomething really funny to say, but it would be a polite way of saying I\r\ndon't discuss my private conversations with my wife. (Laughter.)\r\n\t \r\n\t Actually, while I was very pleased with the First Lady's\r\ntrip and with the way my wife and daughter were treated and what they\r\nlearned, and very, very pleased with the coverage, I don't really agree\r\nwith that. I mean, I think that I very much wanted her to go to India,\r\nto Pakistan, to Bangladesh, Nepal, to Sri Lanka because that part of the\r\nworld is a very important part of the world to us. And for various\r\nreasons, we have not been as closely involved, even with the democracies\r\nthere, as we might have been, largely as a legacy of the Cold War.\r\n\t \r\n\t But one of the biggest obstacles to the modernization of\r\nthose countries and to the vitality and preservation of democracy are\r\nthe challenges faced by women and children there. I did not consider\r\nthe trip either too traditional or unimportant. I thought what they\r\nwere doing -- what Hillary was doing -- was profoundly important. And\r\nafter getting a blow-by-blow description of the trip for a good long\r\nwhile yesterday from both my wife and daughter, I still feel that way.\r\n\t \r\n\t So I -- when my wife was an unconventional First Lady of\r\nArkansas, and working full-time, and as she told that lady in the\r\nBangladesh village, making more money than her husband -- (laughter) --\r\nstill her first concern was always for the welfare of mothers, children\r\nand families. She founded an organization called the Advocates for\r\nFamilies and Children in our state. She was on the board of the\r\nChildren's Hospital. We built an intensive care nursery there -- the\r\nfirst time the state had ever been involved. This is a 25-year concern\r\nof hers, and I wouldn't over-read the significance of it.\r\n\t \r\n\t I also wouldn't underestimate the significance of having a\r\nFirst Lady who can galvanize a global discussion about the role of women\r\nand young girls in our planet and for our future. (Applause.)\r\n\t \r\n\t Q\tYou alluded to our being in the Information Age. Many\r\nof us in this room are investigating and developing ways of\r\ndisseminating information electronically. There are thousands outside\r\nthis room who are doing the same. What role, if any, does the federal\r\ngovernment have in censoring or regulating that information and news?\r\n\t \r\n\t THE PRESIDENT: Let me begin by saying I support what\r\nyou're doing and I've tried to bring the White House up to date\r\nelectronically. You know, we have a pretty sophisticated e-mail\r\noperation. And now you can take a tour of the White House and all the\r\nfederal agencies on the Internet and find out more than you ever wanted\r\nto know. So we're trying to be there for you in virtual reality land.\r\n\t \r\n\t I guess you're asking me about the bill that Senator Exon\r\nintroduced on trying to regulate obscenity through the e-mail system, or\r\nthrough the electronic superhighway. To be perfectly honest with you, I\r\nhave not read the bill. I am not familiar with its contents, and I\r\ndon't know what I think. I do believe -- about this specific bill.\r\n(Laughter.) I'll tell you what I think about the issue.\r\n\t \r\n\t I believe that insofar as that governments have the legal\r\nright to regulate obscenity that has not been classified as speech under\r\nthe First Amendment, and insofar as the American public widely supports,\r\nfor example, limiting access of children to pornographic magazines, I\r\nthink it is folly to think that we should sit idly by when a child who\r\nis a computer whiz may be exposed to things on that computer, which in\r\nsome ways are more powerful, more raw and more inappropriate than those\r\nthings from which we protect them when they walk in a 7-Eleven.\r\n\t \r\n\t So as a matter of principle, I am not opposed to it. I\r\njust can't comment on the details of the bill, because I do not know\r\nenough about it. And I do not believe in any way, shape or form that we\r\nshould be able to do on e-mail, or through the electronic superhighway,\r\nin terms of government regulation of speech, anything beyond what we\r\ncould elsewhere. I think the First Amendment has to be uniform in its\r\napplication.\r\n\t \r\n\t So I'm not calling for a dilution of the First Amendment.\r\nBut if you just imagine, those of us who have children and who think\r\nabout this, you just think about what's the difference in going in the\r\n7-Eleven and hooking up to the computer. I think that we have to find\r\nsome resolution of this. And within the Supreme Court's standards,\r\nwhich are very strict, I am not -- am philosophically opposed to some\r\naction.\r\n\t \r\n\t Thank you very much. (Applause.)\r\n\r\n END12:55 P.M. CDT<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"THE WHITE HOUSEOffice of the Press SecretaryDallas, Texas___________________________________________________________________________For Immediate Release April 7, 1995REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT TO THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF NEWSPAPER EDITORSLoews Anatole Hotel Dallas, Texas 11:55 A.M. EDT THE PRESIDENT: Thank you...<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4185,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":true,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":false,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[6,64],"tags":[104],"class_list":["post-3742","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-government","category-speeches-by-legislators-and-regulators","tag-government"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p89tuq-Ym","jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/12\/Government-Executive-Branch.png","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3742","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3742"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3742\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4198,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3742\/revisions\/4198"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4185"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3742"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3742"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/multiracial.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3742"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}